Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

The Alleged Sons of God

141 posts in this topic

THE ALLEGED SONS OF GOD

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies, at their hearts content, almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that, it is much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence, and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favor that he was rather a biological son of Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

I guess my reaction is to ask your evidence that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. You mention Pantera, so I assume you are referring to Celsus' reference to a Roman Centurion by that name who is alleged to have been Jesus' father. If so, I must say I find it amusing that you tout the validity of this version of events while accuse earlier manuscripts (1st Century AD) of being "pious forgeries" (see your other threads). Why is a late 2nd Century writing (appearing only in history because of a 3rd Century Christian author quoting him) seen by you as reliable while other 1st Century texts are ignored as forgeries?

On the other hand, if your question is less directed and the mention of Pantera is removed, I guess this becomes a matter of belief - was Mary raped by a Roman solder/centurion? Was she having sex before marriage with Joseph, and made up a story to cover it up? Was she really visited by the Holy Spirit? The question becomes whatever you wish it to become. Those who believe virgin births are possible will accept possible supernatural occurrence. Those who believe they are impossible will say it must have been a human agent (whether Joseph or some Roman soldier dude, or someone else entirely.... up for debate).

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all sons and daughters of god. :innocent:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my reaction is to ask your evidence that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. You mention Pantera, so I assume you are referring to Celsus' reference to a Roman Centurion by that name who is alleged to have been Jesus' father. If so, I must say I find it amusing that you tout the validity of this version of events while accuse earlier manuscripts (1st Century AD) of being "pious forgeries" (see your other threads). Why is a late 2nd Century writing (appearing only in history because of a 3rd Century Christian author quoting him) seen by you as reliable while other 1st Century texts are ignored as forgeries?

On the other hand, if your question is less directed and the mention of Pantera is removed, I guess this becomes a matter of belief - was Mary raped by a Roman solder/centurion? Was she having sex before marriage with Joseph, and made up a story to cover it up? Was she really visited by the Holy Spirit? The question becomes whatever you wish it to become. Those who believe virgin births are possible will accept possible supernatural occurrence. Those who believe they are impossible will say it must have been a human agent (whether Joseph or some Roman soldier dude, or someone else entirely.... up for debate).

It appears his whole purpose is to bait imo. He knows it would be terribly offensive to Christians to hear that Christ was the b****** product of a rape. Assuming of course that any real Christian would have their faith swayed by such nonsense. It seems a strange way to amuse oneself but to each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE ALLEGED SONS OF GOD

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies, at their hearts content, almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that, it is much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence, and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favor that he was rather a biological son of Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

Well... I'm not saying your snalysis is the right one... But I would agree with you that something happened to Mary along those lines. Maby not a Roman soldier. Potentially young people fullfilling their biological imperative. But of course Christians can never accept their truelly humble roots. This is their heel.

We are all sons and daughters of god. :innocent:

My thoughts exactly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ben:

I must say that I am deeply impressed with the historical perspectives you bring-up. Anyone who dismisses you as being 'argumentative' is missing-out on what you bring to the table. I wish we had all the answers and I can't wait for the day when all is revealed. We can't ignore what is substantiated in history; unfortunately, the historical record is incomplete... what a shame that the Great Library of Alexandria was burned for much of the historical record was lost there.

The most notable thing about the story of Yeshua is that after 2000 years it is still a hotly debated story--almost self-evident that it is no ordinary story.

Edited by Ides plus 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think aliens planted Jesus inside of Mary.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears his whole purpose is to bait imo. He knows it would be terribly offensive to Christians to hear that Christ was the b****** product of a rape. Assuming of course that any real Christian would have their faith swayed by such nonsense. It seems a strange way to amuse oneself but to each his own.

I used to think that with a few of Bens posts... But I no longer feel that way.... I feel he has a right to post up his beliefs just like the rest of you... If his beliefs do not fall into your own, that's just one of those things...

Your beliefs do not match mine, yet if you post up what you see God as ect, I will not call it bait all because it is not what I personally believe.... See what I am saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a shame that the Great Library of Alexandria was burned for much of the historical record was lost there.

Hi Ides +12,

Welcome to UM and I hope that your stay here is a productive one. I read your post and this sentence in particular leapt out at me. When I first joined this website I often heard about the Library at Alexandria. I heard how it was burned down by Christians, and how much information was lost because of what they had done. At the time, I thought it sad, and put it down to human nature, and to a great degree I simply accepted what people here said because I had no other frame of reference.

Then one day a while back (mid-2010, to be exact) I took a deeper look into it, and found something quite unexpected. The Library had been burned down several times in history, and the time that was attributed to the Christians, there weren't actually any books in the library at the time (due to the previous burning, all remaining books were kept in another repository). The reason the Christians burned down the Library was because of the images of other gods in the place, the Christians thought it heretical. Definitely a loss in archaeology, but there is very little chance that the Christians actually destroyed any documents. And more to the point, the reason for the burning of the library was not to hide information (as is often accompanied by these claims) but simply because the library was idolising other gods besides the Christian God.

Every now and then I see people accusing the Christian Church of burning down the Library at Alexandria in order to bury records that they did not want to be made known, and I just wanted to ensure that there was no misunderstanding here. All the best, and as I said at the start I wish you all the best in your stay here at this most excellent forum :tu:

~ Regards, PA

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ides +12,

Welcome to UM and I hope that your stay here is a productive one. I read your post and this sentence in particular leapt out at me. When I first joined this website I often heard about the Library at Alexandria. I heard how it was burned down by Christians, and how much information was lost because of what they had done. At the time, I thought it sad, and put it down to human nature, and to a great degree I simply accepted what people here said because I had no other frame of reference.

Hi back PA,

Thank you for the kind regard. I guess I have heard many variations of what happened to the Library and, more importantly, its contents; but, I have learned to refrain from knee-jerk judgments because history has so many twists. Regardless of the reason, the loss of most of that historical record is a source of much confusion and conflict.

One variant is that secret societies had taken and kept the prime documents from the rest of us...a conspiracy theory, Yes! Much suspicious evidence and no proof.

As I am a seeker, I happened upon this site and only recently joined the discussion which I seldom do -- and some sites, if they don't agree with what you post pull it anyway.

Again, thanks and I wish all is well with you.

Ides +12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think aliens planted Jesus inside of Mary.

Well, is'nt that "a given", even to christians." Neither god nor the holy spirit is human. :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my reaction is to ask your evidence that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. You mention Pantera, so I assume you are referring to Celsus' reference to a Roman Centurion by that name who is alleged to have been Jesus' father. If so, I must say I find it amusing that you tout the validity of this version of events while accuse earlier manuscripts (1st Century AD) of being "pious forgeries" (see your other threads). Why is a late 2nd Century writing (appearing only in history because of a 3rd Century Christian author quoting him) seen by you as reliable while other 1st Century texts are ignored as forgeries?

On the other hand, if your question is less directed and the mention of Pantera is removed, I guess this becomes a matter of belief - was Mary raped by a Roman solder/centurion? Was she having sex before marriage with Joseph, and made up a story to cover it up? Was she really visited by the Holy Spirit? The question becomes whatever you wish it to become. Those who believe virgin births are possible will accept possible supernatural occurrence. Those who believe they are impossible will say it must have been a human agent (whether Joseph or some Roman soldier dude, or someone else entirely.... up for debate).

Listen Paranoid, I have a question for you. As you know by now, I am Jewish. I have set before me the Tanach, which is the Bible of Judaism and the NT, which is the Christian Bible. While the Christian Bible vandalizes Judaism with the message of a Jewish demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman, I have also the testimony by Celsus that Jesus could have been born as a result of a rape by a Roman soldier. Since there is no such a thing in Judaism, what do you think I should go with, the NT or Celsus? Do you want to know who is at fault here? Neither myself nor Celsus but the NT. If the NT had pickep up a Greek to say that Mary had been conceived by the "Holy Spirit" to bear Jesus, we would not be having this discussion today. But, for heaven's sake, give me the benefit of the doubt. Jesus was a Jewish man and not a Greek.

Ben

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all sons and daughters of god. :innocent:

Yes, in that sense, I agree with you, but not according to the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. There is not such a thing in Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus. What do we read in Revelation 14:12? "Here is the patience of the saints; those who keep

the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus." Which means, those who live according to the Law and Judaism.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It appears his whole purpose is to bait imo. He knows it would be terribly offensive to Christians to hear that Christ was the b****** product of a rape. Assuming of course that any real Christian would have their faith swayed by such nonsense. It seems a strange way to amuse oneself but to each his own.

Hey 'and then', that's not my intention to bring up the truth as I understand it in the NT, but my way to fight back Replacement Theology. I mean, the vandalism of Judaism by Christianity. Thousands of Jews are getting lost to us almost every year by getting converted to Christianity for lack of knowledge of either the Tanach as well as the NT. If we do not stand for what we believe, the next holocaust will be of our own Faith.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... I'm not saying your snalysis is the right one... But I would agree with you that something happened to Mary along those lines. Maby not a Roman soldier. Potentially young people fullfilling their biological imperative. But of course Christians can never accept their truelly humble roots. This is their heel.

My thoughts exactly.

Not that it be my wish or belief that any thing of that sort ever happened to Mary. I would rather sustain that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's than to have such a tragedy happened to Mary. If there is someone here to blame for, Christians are the ones for promoting the Greek myth of the demigod.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben:

I must say that I am deeply impressed with the historical perspectives you bring-up. Anyone who dismisses you as being 'argumentative' is missing-out on what you bring to the table. I wish we had all the answers and I can't wait for the day when all is revealed. We can't ignore what is substantiated in history; unfortunately, the historical record is incomplete... what a shame that the Great Library of Alexandria was burned for much of the historical record was lost there.

The most notable thing about the story of Yeshua is that after 2000 years it is still a hotly debated story--almost self-evident that it is no ordinary story.

Ides plus 12, I don't say this with pride, because I wish it had not been true, but not every thing got lost in the flames of the fire in the Great

Library of Alexandria. This tragic episode was recorded by the Talmud, which was not burned in that fire. As I said, I am not proud to remind you of

that, because I wish it had not been that way.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add my opinion to this if I may. I am an atheist. I do not believe in any god. So, for me to believe that Mary was impregnated by a divine "hand" is ridiculous. My view is that there was indeed something else going on. In those days, women who were raped by soldiers were typically socially ostrasized or even stoned or beaten to death. So, if she were pregnant by rape, she would need to conceal that. If she is married, yet the baby is to another man, that was most certainly a death sentence. Now, here is a pregnant Mary, married to Joseph, and claiming the child is not HIS, but GOD'S. Huh? Nice story. Nice cover up. SOMEONE important knew she was pregnant by another man so she couldn't say the baby was Joseph's. Therefore, what to do? Hey, isn't there a legend of a messiah to be born? Yeah? Well, guess what? An angel said...

Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

Perhaps, Mary was so divine. Maybe she "liked" this guy/soldier. Maybe not. Maybe it was rape. Maybe this guy took her batting eyes in a way she didn't expect. In any case, in order to live, the pregnant Mary had to make up a good story BECAUSE SOMEONE KNEW THE TRUTH. When your life is on the line, you will do anything. Jesus was just a man. He was no son of God. And Mary was like today's trailer trash. Can anyone say, "Who's yer daddy?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think aliens planted Jesus inside of Mary.

Well, that would have been not so tragic an option. However, any thing but to bring the Greek myth of the demigod into Judaism.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I used to think that with a few of Bens posts... But I no longer feel that way.... I feel he has a right to post up his beliefs just like the rest of you... If his beliefs do not fall into your own, that's just one of those things...

Your beliefs do not match mine, yet if you post up what you see God as ect, I will not call it bait all because it is not what I personally believe.... See what I am saying?

Wow Mom, thanks! That was a tonic.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something that people don't usually think about. Here Jesus is referred to as a demi-god. If God is capable of supplying the male side of a conception, why could He not also supply the female side: creating a wholly divine sperm and egg. Mary was not the biological mother; she was just the surrogate mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add my opinion to this if I may. I am an atheist. I do not believe in any god. So, for me to believe that Mary was impregnated by a divine "hand" is ridiculous. My view is that there was indeed something else going on. In those days, women who were raped by soldiers were typically socially ostrasized or even stoned or beaten to death. So, if she were pregnant by rape, she would need to conceal that. If she is married, yet the baby is to another man, that was most certainly a death sentence. Now, here is a pregnant Mary, married to Joseph, and claiming the child is not HIS, but GOD'S. Huh? Nice story. Nice cover up. SOMEONE important knew she was pregnant by another man so she couldn't say the baby was Joseph's. Therefore, what to do? Hey, isn't there a legend of a messiah to be born? Yeah? Well, guess what? An angel said...

Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

Perhaps, Mary was so divine. Maybe she "liked" this guy/soldier. Maybe not. Maybe it was rape. Maybe this guy took her batting eyes in a way she didn't expect. In any case, in order to live, the pregnant Mary had to make up a good story BECAUSE SOMEONE KNEW THE TRUTH. When your life is on the line, you will do anything. Jesus was just a man. He was no son of God. And Mary was like today's trailer trash. Can anyone say, "Who's yer daddy?"

Wow! Curseofthe44, I hate to agree with atheists, but hey! I must admit. You have hit the head of the nail on this one. Not that I wish we were

right, but if things went the way we take them, neither you nor I am at fault. Guilty are those who forced this idea with the intent to enhance

Jesus divinity by denying the natural way for man to be born.

Ben

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something that people don't usually think about. Here Jesus is referred to as a demi-god. If God is capable of supplying the male side of a conception, why could He not also supply the female side: creating a wholly divine sperm and egg. Mary was not the biological mother; she was just the surrogate mother.

So, why all the mystery about hiding what really happened? Wouldn't the truth have avoided all the anxieties Mary and Joseph went through? For

heaven's sake, the lady could have been stoned to death! No, this case is worse than Swiss cheese; full of wholes.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen Paranoid, I have a question for you. As you know by now, I am Jewish. I have set before me the Tanach, which is the Bible of Judaism and the NT, which is the Christian Bible. While the Christian Bible vandalizes Judaism with the message of a Jewish demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman, I have also the testimony by Celsus that Jesus could have been born as a result of a rape by a Roman soldier. Since there is no such a thing in Judaism, what do you think I should go with, the NT or Celsus? Do you want to know who is at fault here? Neither myself nor Celsus but the NT. If the NT had pickep up a Greek to say that Mary had been conceived by the "Holy Spirit" to bear Jesus, we would not be having this discussion today. But, for heaven's sake, give me the benefit of the doubt. Jesus was a Jewish man and not a Greek.

Ben

And while I fully and totally agree with your Right to believe as per your Jewish heritage, the fact remains that Christians don't see Jesus as a "demigod". Jesus was not a half-man/half-god as some others were (Hercules, for example). Jesus was born of a human, but he was not half/half. He was fully and 100% human, and he was fully and 100% deity. I understand that you don't believe this, and I at no time have required that you agree with me. I'm just saying that the demigod of Greek mythology is totally different, whether or not you agree with Christians.

But I will give you the benefit here - Jesus was Jewish, not Greek. Though I don't think this supports what you want it to support, so again we rejoin our carousel of joy :tu:

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while I fully and totally agree with your Right to believe as per your Jewish heritage, the fact remains that Christians don't see Jesus as a "demigod". Jesus was not a half-man/half-god as some others were (Hercules, for example). Jesus was born of a human, but he was not half/half. He was fully and 100% human, and he was fully and 100% deity. I understand that you don't believe this, and I at no time have required that you agree with me. I'm just saying that the demigod of Greek mythology is totally different, whether or not you agree with Christians.

But I will give you the benefit here - Jesus was Jewish, not Greek. Though I don't think this supports what you want it to support, so again we rejoin our carousel of joy :tu:

~ PA

Let us do this: Since Jesus was a Jewish man, as you have agreed with me above, IMHO, there is just one way to minimize the charge of vandalism of

Judaism in the NT; to find in the Tanach an evidence to support the case of Jesus as a full man and full God. I am all ears.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally my issue is the immense suspension of disbelief required to accept that a person is the child of/is a deity.

Today if a woman came told someone that she had an experience like Mary and had a virgin conception would she be believed? Not a chance. Yet an account 2000 years ago is believed without a thought on a global scale.

The most believeable explanation of Mary's pregnancy is that she simply had sex. Was it consentual? We may never know. However if she was raped there's the possibility that the experience was so traumatic her mind simply blocked it out (which is known to happen). If that she was the case then she genuinely BELIEVED it was a virgin conception.

So assuming that the conception was the result of natural causes, what about Jesus? Well, it would make him a normal human being. However he would also have been bought up in an environment where the people around him believed he was divine because of his virgin birth. That could easily have led to him believing his own hype and truly believe that he WAS the son of god. Again, this could very plausibly have happened.

Personally that's far more believeable than the virgin birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.